Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Contempt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michigan House adopts contempt resolution against Secretary of State after dispute over subpoenaed records
Summary
The Michigan House on May 22 adopted House Resolution 117 to hold Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the Department of State in civil contempt after a months‑long dispute over requested documents; the resolution passed on a recorded roll call, 58–47.
The Michigan House of Representatives voted to adopt House Resolution 117 on May 22, finding Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the Department of State in civil contempt after the department declined to comply fully with subpoenas from a legislative oversight committee.
The resolution, introduced electronically as House Resolution 117 by Representative de Boyer and taken up on the floor by Majority Floor Leader Postumas, was the subject of sharp floor debate before a recorded roll call was ordered. Representative Sternoglu, speaking in opposition, warned that "the sanctity of our elections is under assault, not by foreign adversaries or cyberattacks, but by elected officials who persist in" — and argued the resolution would harm election workers. Representative DeBoer, arguing for the resolution, said the department had "stonewalled for 7 months" and described the refusal to comply with the subpoena as "a threat to our structure" and the legislature's oversight authority.
After procedural questions and a demand for a recorded vote, the clerk announced the roll‑call tally: 58 aye, 47 nay. The speaker declared the resolution adopted.
The resolution record and floor debate do not specify court action or subsequent enforcement steps on the contempt finding. The House record shows the resolution was introduced for contempt and adopted by the chamber; the transcript does not state whether the chamber immediately referred the matter to the courts or to legal counsel for enforcement.
The floor record contains objections and procedural inquiries about the scope and authority for pursuing legal action; Representative Fitzgerald asked about the specific rule or Mason's Manual provision authorizing legal action relating to a resolution. The House treated the matter as a business resolution, and members debated whether document claims of privilege justified the department's withholding.
The chamber's action represents the House's formal finding on the matter; the transcript does not record any departmental response on the floor, nor does it show subsequent judicial steps. The House adjourned for the day with the resolution adopted and the record reflecting the roll‑call vote.
